50
CENTRUM FÖR RÄTTVISA v. SWEDEN JUDGMENT
information on personal data is given to requesting individuals. In the
absence of examples provided by the Government that illustrate the
effectiveness of this remedy, the Court cannot find that it has practical
importance. Furthermore, the FRA’s procedure to correct, block or destroy
personal data (paragraph 48) is dependent on the individual’s knowledge
that personal data has been registered and the nature of that data. Therefore,
that remedy must be deemed to be ineffective in practice.
176. The Court notes, however, that Swedish law provides for several
remedies of a general nature, in particular the possibility of addressing
individual complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen and the Chancellor
of Justice (see paragraphs 51-53 above). These two institutions examine
whether courts and authorities and their officials comply with laws and
regulations and fulfil their obligations, not the least in regard to citizens’
fundamental rights and freedoms. They are thus authorised to scrutinise the
work of the courts and authorities involved in signals intelligence activities
and there appears to be no impediment preventing an individual from
introducing a complaint about an interference of privacy rights. The two
institutions have the right of access to documents and other materials for the
performance of their scrutiny. While their decisions are not legally binding,
their opinions command great respect in Sweden. They also have the power
to initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings against public officials for
actions taken in the discharge of their duties. As regards the Chancellor of
Justice, it is also of relevance that a practice has developed in the last
several years according to which the Chancellor may receive and resolve
individual compensation claims for alleged violations of the Convention
(paragraphs 53 and 172).
Moreover, the Court notes that the Data Protection Authority may
receive and examine individual complaints under the Personal Data Act
(paragraph 54).
177. To sum up, the Court observes that the Swedish remedies available
for complaints relating to secret surveillance do not include the recourse to a
court, save for an appeal against the FRA’s decisions on disclosure and
corrective measures, which remedies the Court have as such found to be
ineffective. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a possibility for an
individual to be informed of whether his or her communications have
actually been intercepted or, generally, to be given reasoned decisions.
Thus, in regard to the final stage of supervision of signals intelligence
measures – reviews requested by individuals after the measures have been
carried out – the Swedish system does not offer the same guarantees in these
respects as the scrutiny in the United Kingdom, examined in the Kennedy
case.
178. Nevertheless, there are several remedies by which an individual
may initiate an examination of the lawfulness of measures taken during the
operation of the signals intelligence system, notably through requests to the